DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S GOOGLE INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

9(1)(vi) royalty income will be taxable in India whether or not the non-resident has a residence or place of business or business connection in India. 11.9. The Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics (345 ITR 494) (Kar) had occasion to examine the term "royalty" vis-à-vis "computer software". The Hon’ble Court observed

M/S BELGACOM INTERNATIONAL CARRIER SERVICES SA ,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. B.R. Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(It)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Belgacom The Deputy International Carrier Commissioner Of Services Sa, Income Tax, Rue Lebeau 4, Circle -1(1), 1000 Brussels, International Taxation, Vs. Belgium. Bangalore. Appellant Respondent : Shri V. Sridharan, Senior Assessee By Advocate : Shri Pradeep Kumar, Cit-Dr & Revenue By Smt. Vandana Sagar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 16-03-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26-04-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Non Resident Assessee Against Order Dated 30.10.2017 Passed By Dcit (It), Circle -1(1), Bangalore On Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Being Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Dcit, Circle - 1(1), International Taxation, Bengaluru ('A0'), Read With The Order Of The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel ('Drp*), Bengaluru, The Assessee Begs To Prefer The Present Appeal On The Following Grounds: 1. The Learned Ao Erred In Exercising, Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act In The Case Of The Appellant. 2. The Lower Authorities Erred In Holding That A Sum Of Rs. 6,87,13,119/- Received By The Appellant From Its Customer In India Is In The Nature Of 'Royalty' Within The Meaning Of Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The It Act & Accordingly Taxable In India Under The It Act.

section 9(1) of the Act. That clause speaks of "the use of any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or Page 27 IT(IT)A No. 2884/Bang/2017 trade mark or similar property". It is contended, relying on the decision of ITAT in the case of Asia Satellite Telecommunications Co. Ltd. v. Dy.CIT [2003] 85 ITD 478 (Delhi

SKF TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri. Abraham P. George

1 per cent. Korea 24252 0.66 per 324499 12.4 1389 8685 10073 3.6 47.784 cent. 2 per cent. Singapo 133782 3.63 per 165523 6.3 7659 4430 12089 4.3 47.926 re cent. 9 per cent. C& 3684497 100 per 262736 100 210949 70316 281265 100 517.083 W Asia cent. 33 per per cent. cent. IT(TP)A.1481/B/2010 & IT(TP)A.1339/Bang/2011

M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. ITO, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

ITO, BANGALORE vs. M/S CAE FLIGHT TRAINING PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, Both the C

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Smt. Beena Pillai

Section 36 (1) (iii) of the IT Act was never the issue under consideration. Similarly, the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari was also in the context of role of the Controller of Capital Issues (CCI) in giving sanction for the issue of debentures and on the larger issue of principles of comity of courts administering the laws throughout the country

QLIKTECH INTERNATIONAL AB,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CIRCLE-2(2), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(It)A No. 173/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2017-18

price as goods, in a medium that either stores the software or embeds it in the hardware;(v) The distributor does not get the right to use the product; and (vi) The end-user can only use the computer program by installing it in the computer hardware owned by the end-user and cannot in any manner reproduce

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

EDGEVERVE SYSTEMS LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

price allocation. Based on such valuation, the total purchase consideration was allocated to identifiable intangible assets such as business contracts, technology, and goodwill, and depreciation was claimed under section 32 of the Act. ITA Nos.290 - 294/Bang/2025 Page 23 of 53 30.1 The learned AR pointed out that the AO originally disallowed the claim on the ground that the assets were

M/S SAP LABS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

9. Before us the Ld.AR contended that the order passed by the Ld.TPO is time barred under the provisions of section 153 rws 92CA(3) of the Act and hence it is liable to be quashed. He referred to the provisions of section 153(1) and submitted that reference u/s 92CA (3) of the Act was received by the Ld.TPO

D.C.I.T., BANGALORE vs. M/S SAP LABS INDIA PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 561/Bang/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy No. 138, Export Promotion Commissioner Of Industrial Park, Income Tax, Whitefield, Circle – 6 (1)(1), Bangalore – 560 066. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aafcs3649P Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 437/Bang/2015 (By Revenue) : Shri Aliasgar Rampurawala, Assessee By Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-06-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-07-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By Assessee As Well As Revenue Against Final Assessment Order Dated 29.01.2015 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle – 6(1)(2), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2010-11 On Following Consolidated Grounds Of Appeal. Assessee’S Appeal: “The Grounds Mentioned Herein By The Appellant Are Without Prejudice To One Another.

9. Before us the Ld.AR contended that the order passed by the Ld.TPO is time barred under the provisions of section 153 rws 92CA(3) of the Act and hence it is liable to be quashed. He referred to the provisions of section 153(1) and submitted that reference u/s 92CA (3) of the Act was received by the Ld.TPO

NABHIRAJ RATNA BALRAJ BY LEGAL HEIR B.R.RAKESH,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2016-17

transfer. ii. The limit of 5% has been increased to 10% by the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021. iii. A question arises as to whether the tolerance limit is prospective from the date of its introduction or is retrospective? If it is retrospective, it is retrospective since when? iv. Amendment made in scheme of section 50C(1), by inserting third

M/S HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS LAB PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SPECIAL RANGE-3 , BANGALORE

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2012-13

transfer pricing guidelines wherein it is mentioned that there was no separate benchmarking required to be made in a scenario where the transactions are closely linked or continuous that they cannot be evaluated addition on a separate basis. 9) The contentions of the taxpayer are placed on record and is disposed as below. The taxpayer has stated that no separate

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO concluded that no adjustment was required to the international transactions. The assessee submitted before the AO that the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2017 in the case of GIPL holding that payments to GIL towards Adwords program to be royalty was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and remanded

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED,IRELAND vs. DCIT (IT), JCIT(OSD) (IT) - CIRCLE 1(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) and the TPO concluded that no adjustment was required to the international transactions. The assessee submitted before the AO that the order of the Tribunal dated 23.10.2017 in the case of GIPL holding that payments to GIL towards Adwords program to be royalty was set aside by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and remanded

TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LIMITED,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

1] 2. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation by the learned Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Transfer Pricing — Range 4(2) — Mumbai (learned TPO') and in upholding the adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant in respect of manufacturing activity of the Appellant. [corresponding to Ground

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S TATA POWER SOLAR SYSTEMS LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed on the legal issue

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiit(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Tata Power Solar The Deputy Systems Ltd., Commissioner Of 78, Electronic City, Income Tax, Hosur Road, Circle – 7(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 100. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaact4660J Appellant Respondent & It(Tp)A No. 699/Bang/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 (By Assessee) Assessee By : Shri Kanchun Kaushal, Ca : Shri Manjunath Karkihalli, Revenue By Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals By Assessee & Revenue Arises Out Of Final Assessment Order Dated 28.01.2016 Passed By The Ld.Dcit, Circle -7 (1)(1), Bangalore For Assessment Year 2011-12 On Following Grounds Of Appeal: It(Tp)A No. 548/Bang/2016 (Revenue’S Appeal): “1. The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel Are Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case.

1] 2. That the learned AO and the learned Panel erred in upholding the rejection of Transfer Pricing ('TP') documentation by the learned Additional Commissioner of Income tax, Transfer Pricing — Range 4(2) — Mumbai (learned TPO') and in upholding the adjustment to the transfer price of the Appellant in respect of manufacturing activity of the Appellant. [corresponding to Ground

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S SANDISK INDIA DEVICE DESIGN CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

V. VASUDEVAN, Vice President: IT(TP)A No.341/Bang/2015 is an appeal by the Revenue while IT(TP)A No.543/Bang/2015 is an appeal by the assessee. Both these appeals are directed against the final Order of Assessment dated 30.01.2015 passed by the ITO, Ward – 6(1)(1), Bengaluru, under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income